Some have presented the argument that Jesus was not referring to the high priest seeing him soon in his first go around at life, but rather, during some future resurrection. I beg to differ based on a conclusion drawn from other passages that clearly indicate the writers of the Gospels and other New Testament books expected Jesus to return in their time.

One thing about apocalyptic writings is, they only concern themselves with the here and now and the "soon to be." They are often written in times of great distress and meant to be an encouragement to those who are suffering. As with the book of Revelation, it would make no sense whatsoever to write a book or letter, present it to a contemporary audience but intend for the message to be for a generation millenniums away into a distant future.

In one account found in Matthew 10, Jesus sends out his Disciples to preach throughout Israel starting at verse 16. Reading from verse 16, Jesus [allegedly] informs his Disciples he is sending them out amongst wolves where they will be persecuted. They are not to worry he tells them because they would not make it throughout Israel before he (Jesus) comes back. He certainly was not speaking to some distant generation. These words of encouragement were meant for his disciples as is clearly indicated. If he meant some much later date, missionaries have been all over Israel many times over and there still has been no sight of this Jesus.

In the book of First Peter, the writer tells his audience to cheer up and live right because he was certain they were living in the last time(s). In the second book that bears his name we find him having to explain himself. It was clear that critics were stepping forward, maybe even within his own ranks, asking, "Hey, where's the promise of this second coming? Our father's have died and he's still not here yet." The writer then employs a spin that is signature of much of Christian apologetics. He come up with this grand explanation based on a Psalm that says that one day to God is as one thousand years and one thousand years as one day. The implication is that God does not reckon time as we do so in other words, "who's counting?" He then goes on to say that the apparent delay is a result of God's desire that all men come to salvation. He obviously assumes the position to think and speak for God to erase the obvious - there was no returning Jesus.

The most telling evidence is from the mouth of Jesus himself, if we are to believe he said any such things. Then again, "sons of god," "saviors," and gods" do say some wild things. They always do as they form their cults. In Matthew 24, he gives a great sermon to his Disciples highlighted by the recurrent use of the word "YOU." He tells them over and over again that "ye shall..." He tells them the end was near "even at their doors." They were the ones to see the signs, the wonders, the second coming. Their generation would NOT past until they see him return AND on another occasion he tells them that there were some standing in his midst that would "not taste death before they see the son of man coming in glory." Considering what was on the horizon (war with Rome) and the tension of the times leading to that great war, the persecution of the Christian sect by Nero and Domitian, it is no wonder there was so much talk of enduring the suffering because Jesus was soon to come back, vanquish the wicked, reward the righteous who endured to the end and set up a new kingdom in which they would be co-rulers with him.